After discussing this issue, there don't appear to be any objections.
Go ahead with the changes. Craig On Apr 25, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Michael Bouschen wrote:
Hi,as Craig recently pointed out the JDO XSD files are not correct and cause failures when using the feature schema-full-checking during XML parsing (see Craig's email with subject "XSD woes" and the JIRA issue http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-472).Here is a proposal of what should be changed from my point of view:- Loosen the restrictions on the placement of extension elements, meaning that the jdo implementation needs to do more checking. I sent around an updated version of the JDO XSD file (subject "Re: XSD woes") and did not receive any objections. - Update the version entry in the XML Schema file to 2.1 and rename the xsd files accordingly: jdo_2_1.xsd, orm_2_1.xsd and jdoquery_2_1.xsd. - For consistency rename the DTD files to include the version number 2.1 (e.g. jdo_2_1.dtd) and adapt the standard PUBLIC and SYSTEM DOCTYPE.Regards Michael -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineering GmbH Tel.: +49/(0)30/235 520-33 Buelowstr. 66 Fax.: +49/(0)30/217 520-1210783 Berlin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dr. Gerhard Mueller-ProefrockAnna-Kristin Proefrock Sitz Berlin, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 564 52
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
